It seems to me that there’s a potential analogy between Obama and the 3 ½ years he has left as President and Abraham Lincoln after the Civil War broke out. To Lincoln at the beginning of his term, the war was not about the abolition of slavery; it was about the preservation of the union. At that point in time he might have been willing to end the war if the Confederacy had agreed to stop fighting with a compromise of no spread of slavery beyond the South. But as the war developed, as Black people took direct action by leaving the plantations and migrating to Union-held territory, as the North had difficulty in subduing the South, Lincoln’s thinking evolved, leading to the Emancipation Proclamation and, in early 1865, his successful push for a Constitutional amendment outlawing slavery.

The world needs to see a similar evolution with Barack Obama when it comes to the climate crisis, and after his June 25th speech there’s reason to believe it could happen. Between the extreme weather events that will keep hitting us and the growth of the fossil fuel resistance movement, there’s little question that the pressures will intensify for action on climate at the scale of the crisis.

Glick and Obama are working against freedom. Lincoln was for it. We’re done with comparisons.
Or I’ll add this one. Becoming a wartime president with only the slightest military experience (still more than Obama’s), Lincoln set himself to learn what he could and he chose advisors who knew their jobs, even those who scorned Lincoln himself. Obama has learned little and chosen a team of sycophants.

Howdy gamecock
I’ll dodge replaying the wrongs and rights of the War of 1861-1865 on this thread — suffice to say that Lincoln was not trying to keep or extend slavery, Davis & Co were. The roots of the War were many and longstanding; there were rights and wrongs enough to go around.

I think it is safe to say that the US Civil War would never have started if not for slavery. You can bicker over the details forever. Slavery may not have been the direct cause. The North and South probably would not have had irreconcilable differences if not for slavery.

I deny that I’m Mrs. Lerner or that I’m taking the 5th after making a statement (which is actually legal). Putting the War itself aside, Lincoln was indeed a friend of freedom in any case. This site is about politics and science and society; the War seems out of scope.

Excellent back and forth debate. Regardless of the etiology and teleology of the slavery issue, I hope that you would agree that the abolishment of slavery in the U.S. did result in a net gain of freedom and personal liberty. If not, no doubt you will provide an excellent counterpoint. Cheers.

“I hope that you would agree that the abolishment of slavery in the U.S. did result in a net gain of freedom and personal liberty.”

This is a sticky topic. Of course, ending slavery was the right thing to do. But ending it at gunpoint made a sticky mess, which we are still dealing with.
Read Eric Foner’s “Reconstruction” to see what a big damn mess it was after the war.

I was trying to stay on the topic but…
When the Southern states began seceding, before Lincoln’s inauguration and before he established any policies at all, Lincoln was not planning to go to war. He was doubtful of the legal basis of either secession (no Constitutional provision for it) or of fighting to preserve the Union. But there were federal properties throughout the South; Lincoln had no chance to develop a plan for their status before South Carolina fired on Fort Sumter. The war itself was on a hair trigger; it was South Carolina’s government that pulled it.

“When the Southern states began seceding, before Lincoln’s inauguration and before he established any policies at all, Lincoln was not planning to go to war.”

Mr. Lincoln did not come to the office with no history or advocacy. He was a strong supporter of the Morrill Tariff. This, more than anything, was the cause of secession.

“The power confided to me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion — no using of force against, or among the people anywhere.” – AL, 1st Inaugural

So, as long as Southerners paid their federal taxes, he’d leave them alone.

I do agree that hotheads like Beauregard screwed the pooch. Instead of shooting at Fort Sumter, he should have had his men take them sandwiches and thank them for guarding the harbor. As the Japanese found out 80 years later, shooting at Americans is a loosing proposition.